And to the DS, the second-most sold console and just 0,6% behind the first.
And to the Switch, the third-most sold console, and ~10% behind the first.
And to the Gameboy, the fourth-most sold console.
And to the Famicom, which more or less recovered the video games industry after the crash for at-home video games.
You do realize that many of the features you think of as “less unique” are things that Nintendo thought of when they were highly unique, as they did them first?
The famicom wasn’t unique and the console didn’t save the industry. What saved it was Nintendo’s stringent eye for quality assurance and not letting any random developer make games for the system. The system itself is just a video game console with newer hardware than it’s predecessors.
The Switch isn’t unique, either. It’s a culmination of other ideas that were unique prior to it being put into one unit. It didn’t do anything new in and of itself. It’s a Gameboy mixed with a WiiU.
The NDS isn’t very unique either. It’s a gameboy with a touch screen. The 3DS was more unique while also not being new, just using a gimmick piece of tech that, by most accounts, wasn’t very widely used by players because it was headache inducing. Touch screens and glasses free 3D screens were already things in other hardware, just not used for game systems.
I see you left out the Virtual Boy, which actually was unique for the time. Too bad it sucked.
Their idea of uniqueness in hardware is just novelty and gimmicks, and has only been a success once. With the Wii and its motion control systems.
Your definition of “unique” seems to BE that it’s a crappy gimmick nobody liked and hence the console failed. A bit putting the cart in front of the horse, isn’t it?
I question your definition of unique when you list the Famicom as being unique. What about it was actually unique other than it’s physical appearance?
I’m just calling it out the way Nintendo has defined it in the past. When they say unique, it has always entailed some hit or miss gimmicks outside of 3 things that were truly one of a kind for the time.
I also never claimed all those systems were bad. But their gimmicks weren’t what made many of them good, and they possibly could have been better if the focus was on power and performance over said gimmicks. The WiiU simply didn’t need to exist.
Making unique systems is part of Nintendo’s identity. Xbox and PlayStation compete on maximizing specs and slowly evolving features (though even they throw in one or two gimmicks per generation). Nintendo competes on creating new experiences that draw in people outside of core gamers. The Wii was about using motion controls to draw in people who don’t want to waggle a joystick. The WiiU was about asymmetrical user experience. The Switch (like the GameCube) is about bringing the games to social situations (the opposite of other systems emphasis on online gaming).
Overall, as someone who is not a hardcore gamer, I love the Nintendo philosophy. It encourages developers to experiment with the hardware and create novel interactive experiences.
I am not saying that you are wrong for wanting a more powerful system, but I would be disappointed with a Nintendo system that does not have a big gimmick.
Their unique propositions in generational transitions are what led to the creation of the WiiU.
Can you maybe do something less unique?
And to the DS, the second-most sold console and just 0,6% behind the first.
And to the Switch, the third-most sold console, and ~10% behind the first.
And to the Gameboy, the fourth-most sold console.
And to the Famicom, which more or less recovered the video games industry after the crash for at-home video games.
You do realize that many of the features you think of as “less unique” are things that Nintendo thought of when they were highly unique, as they did them first?
The famicom wasn’t unique and the console didn’t save the industry. What saved it was Nintendo’s stringent eye for quality assurance and not letting any random developer make games for the system. The system itself is just a video game console with newer hardware than it’s predecessors.
The Switch isn’t unique, either. It’s a culmination of other ideas that were unique prior to it being put into one unit. It didn’t do anything new in and of itself. It’s a Gameboy mixed with a WiiU.
The NDS isn’t very unique either. It’s a gameboy with a touch screen. The 3DS was more unique while also not being new, just using a gimmick piece of tech that, by most accounts, wasn’t very widely used by players because it was headache inducing. Touch screens and glasses free 3D screens were already things in other hardware, just not used for game systems.
I see you left out the Virtual Boy, which actually was unique for the time. Too bad it sucked.
Their idea of uniqueness in hardware is just novelty and gimmicks, and has only been a success once. With the Wii and its motion control systems.
Your definition of “unique” seems to BE that it’s a crappy gimmick nobody liked and hence the console failed. A bit putting the cart in front of the horse, isn’t it?
I question your definition of unique when you list the Famicom as being unique. What about it was actually unique other than it’s physical appearance?
I’m just calling it out the way Nintendo has defined it in the past. When they say unique, it has always entailed some hit or miss gimmicks outside of 3 things that were truly one of a kind for the time.
I also never claimed all those systems were bad. But their gimmicks weren’t what made many of them good, and they possibly could have been better if the focus was on power and performance over said gimmicks. The WiiU simply didn’t need to exist.
Making unique systems is part of Nintendo’s identity. Xbox and PlayStation compete on maximizing specs and slowly evolving features (though even they throw in one or two gimmicks per generation). Nintendo competes on creating new experiences that draw in people outside of core gamers. The Wii was about using motion controls to draw in people who don’t want to waggle a joystick. The WiiU was about asymmetrical user experience. The Switch (like the GameCube) is about bringing the games to social situations (the opposite of other systems emphasis on online gaming).
Overall, as someone who is not a hardcore gamer, I love the Nintendo philosophy. It encourages developers to experiment with the hardware and create novel interactive experiences.
I am not saying that you are wrong for wanting a more powerful system, but I would be disappointed with a Nintendo system that does not have a big gimmick.